Obama and the Democrats will soon propose big changes to US Medicine. The two key issues are expanding insurance to the now uninsured, and controlling rising medical costs.
On coverage expansion, the debate now is mainly on how much a “public plan” available to all would displace private insurance. If it displaced most private insurance via better access to government subsidies or preferred treatment, that seems just a backdoor way to get a “single payer” fully government system. We’ll have to see what advantages the public plan is to get.
On cost control, there seems to be some faint hope of cutting medicine’s current tax exemption. Arnold Kling suggested making the public plan a high-deductible catastrophic plan, and I suggested making medicine municipal. But Obama’s main hope is apparently none of these; it instead seems to be to have a Medicare advisory commission suggest cuts, and
Require Congress to give an up or down vote on [its] proposals similar to how the defense base-closing commissions have worked in the past. This kind of solution could help to insulate highly technical MedPAC recommendations from undue political influence.
Also:
When it comes to cost, they actually are starting with Medicare. They hope that the efficiencies work and are voluntarily adopted by private insurance.
To see what this plan is up against, wonks need to recall the failed HMO revolution of the 1990s. The U.S. government and major U.S. businesses tried to push employees into HMOs, who held down costs by sometimes saying no to doctor-recommended treatment. This worked spectacularly well for a few years, and then failed just as spectacularly as furious patients abandoned HMOs en mass, and forced the rest to stop saying no. Costs then shot up to catch up with prior trends:
% US GDP to Medicine
Whatever Obama does to limit medical cost growth, I won’t call it a success until it works for longer than did the HMO revlution. Does anyone know the politics of the end of the HMO revolution – was any US political faction pushing for that end? And how was cost growth held down in the mid ’80 or ’00s?
loading...
CannibalSmith 
Michael Sullivan 
TomB 
Ari 
diogenes 
Jeff 
John Thacker 
George 
[...] the coming US fiscal “train wreck” of retiring baby boomers riding the medical spending escalator. A few years after expanding Medicare drug benefits, we suddenly we have to pay fortunes to quell [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Tyler Dares Obama June 13, 2009 at 10:45 pm
[...] in this country really do not like the idea of third parties restricting their access to care. You can see this quite clearly in the brief flirtation the American health care system had with HMOs… HMOs worked by sometimes refusing doctor-recommended treatment, and in terms of holding down costs [...]
By Southern Appeal » Rationing vs. Economizing June 18, 2009 at 10:43 am
[...] in this country really do not like the idea of third parties restricting their access to care. You can see this quite clearly in the brief flirtation the American health care system had with HMOs… HMOs worked by sometimes refusing doctor-recommended treatment, and in terms of holding down costs [...]
By Rationing vs. Economizing « The American Catholic June 18, 2009 at 10:44 am
[...] world with fertility <1.5, lifespan >100, tax funded leisure for all over 65, and perhaps also >30% of GDP spent on “free” medicine for all. The resulting rapidly falling [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Fertility: The Big Problem November 15, 2010 at 12:07 pm
[...] 1: US medical spending, now >16% of GDP, continues to double as a fraction of GDP every three decades. Politicians worry and agonize, but refuse to actually [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Med Trends Continue November 27, 2010 at 12:42 pm
[...] is many folks bet – we want few things more than health, and the med spending % of GDP has grown for many decades. But while I agree that medicine will continue to grow for decades, on longer [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Innovation: a Growth Industry? July 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm